How were those school construction projects picked?

Tony Kurdzuk/The Star-LedgerMarc Larkins, head of the Schools Development Authority, listens as he is questioned by members of the Joint Committee on Public Schools in Trenton.

It’s an enduring mystery: Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver is one of many still trying to get to the bottom of how the state selected the 10 school construction projects it approved in poor districts.

Mark Larkins, the state’s head of school construction, hasn’t explained. During an hours-long grilling before the Assembly Education Committee on March 15, he dodged probing questions about the final factors for picking projects. He maintained there was no documentation to explain how those decisions were made, but ultimately agreed to provide more information to committee members. He still hasn’t set a time line for that, and won’t even say which questions he will answer.

That’s why it’s a good idea for the state auditor to look into how this $584 million worth of projects was selected, as Oliver has formally requested. Auditor Stephen Eells has agreed to discuss that option — he has limited resources to do investigations, so it’s too bad it had to come to this.

There would be no need if Larkins were more forthcoming. At the Assembly hearing, he described a new scoring system used to prioritize projects, but conceded it wasn’t the final factor in the decisions. Some projects that scored highly for need were still passed over for others ranked lower. But we don’t know how those ultimate choices were made. He needs to explain that in detail.

“He’s a public official — and stress on the word public,” said Assemblyman Patrick Diegnan (D-Middlesex), chair of the Education Committee. “When you’re serving the public, you have to disclose uncomfortable information. And that obviously needs to be done here.”

In the past, this state agency was accused of choosing school construction projects based on political favors. It has since been revamped, with Larkins as its new chief, and hopefully he’s turned things around. But so far, the lack of transparency is not reassuring.

We can’t wait another three years for a full-scale audit; by that time, some schools will be under construction and others left to languish. Hundreds of millions are at stake, so if questions remain unanswered, the state auditor should get involved. Taxpayers need evidence this was done properly, now.